Limitation of Actions - Fraud - Two Years from Discovery of Fraud - Reasonable Diligence

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Scott Milne's claim for fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Milne's fraud claim was untimely under the two-year fraud discovery rule (CPLR 213 [8]). The complaint and documentary evidence, specifically a December 2017 email from Milne forwarding the draft demand letter of his counsel, show that Milne had knowledge of facts that would have led to discovery of the alleged fraud if he had acted with reasonable diligence (see Harbinger Capital Partners II, LP v Apollo Global Mgt., LLC, 236 AD3d 514, 514-515 [1st Dept 2025]). It is undisputed that Milne is an experienced businessperson who was represented by counsel when he discovered in 2017 that a transaction involving defendant ALTOUR Delaware, LLC had occurred. He or his counsel could have, acting with reasonable diligence, discovered the details of the transaction by December 2017, and whether defendants were misrepresenting the nature of that transaction.

For the same reasons, the pleadings, when considered in conjunction with the undisputed documentary evidence, do not state a claim for fraud because Milne has not stated facts showing justifiable reliance on defendants' alleged misrepresentations (see Shalam v KPMG LLP, 89 AD3d 155, 157 [1st Dept 2011]).

Milne's claim of fraud is also duplicative of plaintiff Milne Travel Agency, Inc.'s breach of contract claims (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC, 165 AD3d 108, 114 [1st Dept 2018]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Scarpulla, J.P., Kapnick, González, Shulman, O'Neill-Levy, JJ.